1. A learned judge of this Court doubted the correctness of the decision of this Court in Gopalan v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT. 890) and hence referred these cases to a larger Bench. In the above case, Bhat J. speaking for the Court has held that a revision will lie to a Court of Session from the decision of a Chief Judicial Magistrate or an Assistant Sessions Judge in an appeal from a conviction of the Magistrate of the Second Class filed before the Court of Session but made over to him by the Court of Session. It is seen from the reference order that the Supreme Court decision in Roopchand v. State of Punjab (AIR. 1963 SC. 1503) was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Gopalan's case (1981 KLT. 890) and that was also one of the reasons for making the reference.

2. In Roopchand's case (AIR. 1963 SC. 1503) what the Supreme Court has held is that the State Government which delegated their powers under S.41 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 to an officer cannot thereafter interfere with the order passed by him, in exercise of the revisional powers they have under S.42 of the Act. The Supreme Court held